Harding v. Strong

Citations

• 42 Ill. 148

Syllabus

<p>1. Description of premises in a deed— omitting the name of the State and county. Where a deed described the premises intended to be conveyed, as “ lot five in block one, in Haley’s addition to the city of Monmouth,” without stating in what State or county, the court, on the trial of a suit in ejectment in which such deed is offered in evidence, will take notice that the city of Monmouth is in Warren county, in this State, and will presume that the lot is in the city of Monmouth in this State.</p> <p>3. Pleading and evidence in ejectment—proof of possession m defendant. Under the statute, the return of the officer who serves the process in an action of ejectment, is sufficient proof that the defendant was in possession at the commencement of the suit, unless he files a plea denying such possession.</p> <p>3. Ejectment—requisites of the finding as to the characterr of estate recovered. On the trial of an action of ejectment by the court, without a jury, the judgment, which was for the plaintiff, stated: “ The court finds that the plaintiff is seized in fee, and also finds the defendant guilty,” etc. This was a sufficient finding as to the character of estate recovered.</p>